Bleach — Small Revision

[Arc7Kuroi]

Arc7Fraud?

 

[Deceived3596]

I don't understand this debate at all, Deagonx. You providing another interpretation doesn't debunk the other interpretation. You're only debating against this rating being concrete, not against it existing at all on the profile. These are equally valid interpretations under your view because they're both based on personal belief that Gerard's either being objective or metaphorical with his statements. We don't have a surplus of evidence pointing either way under this interpretation, so both claims are supported by the same level of evidential weight. You should be arguing against it being considered as a concrete rating, rather than also including ratings like "possibly" or "likely". Especially when both of those previous ratings would address your contentions.

 

[Deagonx]

You providing another interpretation doesn't debunk the other interpretation.

Indeed, it's not meant to.

The existence of two possible interpretations of a piece of information is a problem for someone attempting to champion one of them. When I point out the existence and viability of another possibility, this strongly undermines the inclusion of the ability in the profile, because it depends on accepting a literal interpretation a priori.

If there's no solid basis for excluding that possibility, we have to remove the ability because it's based on an unevidenced assumption: i.e., the assumption that the statements about "hope" are referring to a tangible concept rather than a metaphor.

You should be arguing against it being considered as a concrete rating, rather than also including ratings like "possibly" or "likely". Especially when both of those previous ratings would address your contentions.

Usually we need something a bit more decisive even for a "possibly." The existence of a statement that could be interpreted a certain way alone isn't a good reason to an ability to a profile unless it's generally agreed upon that the interpretation is more likely. This isn't always something concrete, it could just be the wording or phrasing. For example, there isn't a precise definition of when something becomes "flowery language" it's just an impression you get from the way a statement is worded.

For my part, I don't get the impression of a literal interpretation being strongly implied by the wording or circumstances, so I am voting against it's inclusion on the profile. It's of course the case that other staff could feel differently and say it seems literal to them and outvote me.

 

[Maitreya12]

To give my two cents on the matter:

I disagree with the conceptual manipulation downgrade.

The proposition for the downgrade suggests that both Toshiro and Gerard are speaking metaphorically when they describe the function of the power “hope” in his sword.

The problem I have with this suggestion is that even if you want to argue that this is a valid interpretation of the words stated on the page, I don’t find this to be an equally valid interpretation as speaking of the ability “hope” as literal.

For one, when Gerard describes the hope, he’s describing his own power as being “based on that hope.” So, is there any reason for Gerard to be speaking metaphorically here as opposed to literally when he’s simply describing his own abilities and what they’re based off of.

What I mean by this is that does the character have a history of speaking in these metaphorical or braggadoshish manner to the point where it impacts how his ability is being described? Because my issue with the proposition is that if the character has no history of providing these unsubstantiated claims, then you’re just assuming he’s speaking in metaphors for assumptions sake when every other time he describes his power he’s being fully accurate. (His explanation for the miracle for example is pretty spot on since the man literally just kept coming back).

This issue gets compounded even more so when you take into account Hitsugaya’s statements as well. Now the proposition has to say multiple characters are speaking in the exact same metaphorical manner in order for the propositions claims to work. Why? Is Hitsugaya known for speaking in these vague and metaphorical manners when facing his opponent? From what I know of the character he’s a pretty stern, cold, and serious guy when facing down his adversaries. So it would be even stranger that he suddenly spoke in the exact same metaphorical manner as his adversary when he’s not known to do such things as opposed to just describing what his opponents abilities was. (Which is what Toshiro was doing since the statement was made when he was describing his own ability of being able to freeze the functionality of things while also explaining how Gerard’s sword stopped working. So you’d have to say Toshiro was also speaking metaphorically when he was describing what his ability was which is again something he doesn’t really do.)

In summary I disagree with the proposed downgrade over the fact that the “metaphorical” interpretation the proposition provides is not an equally valid interpretation as the literal one due to no known consistent pattern of behavior showcasing these characters speaking in such manners when describing their own/opponents’ abilities as opposed to a literal description.

 

[Hellscream]

To give my two cents on the matter:

I disagree with the conceptual manipulation downgrade.

The proposition for the downgrade suggests that both Toshiro and Gerard are speaking metaphorically when they describe the function of the power “hope” in his sword.

The problem I have with this suggestion is that even if you want to argue that this is a valid interpretation of the words stated on the page, I don’t find this to be an equally valid interpretation as speaking of the ability “hope” as literal.

For one, when Gerard describes the hope, he’s describing his own power as being “based on that hope.” So, is there any reason for Gerard to be speaking metaphorically here as opposed to literally when he’s simply describing his own abilities and what they’re based off of.

What I mean by this is that does the character have a history of speaking in these metaphorical or braggadoshish manner to the point where it impacts how his ability is being described? Because my issue with the proposition is that if the character has no history of providing these unsubstantiated claims, then you’re just assuming he’s speaking in metaphors for assumptions sake when every other time he describes his power he’s being fully accurate. (His explanation for the miracle for example is pretty spot on since the man literally just kept coming back).

This issue gets compounded even more so when you take into account Hitsugaya’s statements as well. Now the proposition has to say multiple characters are speaking in the exact same metaphorical manner in order for the propositions claims to work. Why? Is Hitsugaya known for speaking in these vague and metaphorical manners when facing his opponent? From what I know of the character he’s a pretty stern, cold, and serious guy when facing down his adversaries. So it would be even stranger that he suddenly spoke in the exact same metaphorical manner as his adversary when he’s not known to do such things as opposed to just describing what his opponents abilities was. (Which is what Toshiro was doing since the statement was made when he was describing his own ability of being able to freeze the functionality of things while also explaining how Gerard’s sword stopped working. So you’d have to say Toshiro was also speaking metaphorically when he was describing what his ability was which is again something he doesn’t really do.)

In summary I disagree with the proposed downgrade over the fact that the “metaphorical” interpretation the proposition provides is not an equally valid interpretation as the literal one due to no known consistent pattern of behavior showcasing these characters speaking in such manners when describing their own/opponents’ abilities as opposed to a literal description.

Disagreed.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Disagreed.

Ditto. Thread passed. Close this now.

 

[Deceived3596]

Indeed, it's not meant to.

The existence of two possible interpretations of a piece of information is a problem for someone attempting to champion a one of them. When I point out the existence and viability of another possibility, this strongly undermines the inclusion of the ability in the profile, because it depends on accepting a literal interpretation a priori.

If there's no solid basis for excluding that possibility, we have to remove the ability because it's based on an unevidenced assumption: i.e., the assumption that the statements about "hope" are referring to a tangible concept rather than a metaphor.

We literally assume interpretations as applicable to profiles, hence the existence of the "possibly" and "likely" ratings. Both ratings inherently presuppose different, valid interpretations exist for this statement, ability etc. But through other deductive lenses and heuristics, we assert that this interpretation is more likely valid compared to the other, competing interpretations. So the existence of this interpretation doesn't disprove the claim and applicability of the ability.

Ignoring the fact that "solid basis" is entirely subjective under this context, what you consider to be "solid basis" and "un-solid basis" could completely contradict my interpretation of both of those words. We don't exactly need "solid basis" perse. If we have valid interpretations of these statements, which are based around believing the character who has these abilities in the first place are being truthful and direct with their statements, rather than metaphorical. Which we have no, objective reason to believe he's lying or being metaphorical in the first place. Than we can use those interpretations to assert probable outcomes. It's your job to objectively disprove those probable outcomes before you can completely discard them like you're doing right now. You haven't done this, so those outcomes still exist. And such, are still applicable to the profiles.

Remember Deagonx, we don't argue on what's "objectively correct" on this site purely, as it's next to impossible to prove such things with mediums such as fiction. We argue what's "most likely correct" because we can't objectively prove anything.

Usually we need something a bit more decisive even for a "possibly." The existence of a statement that could be interpreted a certain way alone isn't a good reason to an ability to a profile unless it's generally agreed upon that the interpretation is more likely. This isn't always something concrete, it could just be the wording or phrasing. For example, there isn't a precise definition of when something becomes "flowery language" it's just an impression you get from the way a statement is worded.

For my part, I don't get the impression of a literal interpretation being strongly implied by the wording or circumstances, so I am voting against it's inclusion on the profile. It's of course the case that other staff could feel differently and say it seems literal to them and outvote me.

I don't agree with you, I believe we do have decisive enough evidence to assume a "possibly" rating at the very least. We have multiple direct statements about how The Miracle operates, we should assume those statements are factual rather than metaphorical because we don't have reason to believe otherwise.

That's fine, you can disagree. I'm not going to hold you to the flames for just disagreeing, I just don't agree with your interpretation because I consider it less likely compared to the interpretation that I, and many others have provided.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

2 agree with op

2 disagree

1 and 1/2 neutral

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

2 agree with op

2 disagree

1 and 1/2 neutral

Actually 3 mods are fine with keeping possibly passive EE, 1 is neutral, and 1 disagrees.

 

[Deagonx]

Which we have no, objective reason to believe he's lying or being metaphorical in the first place.

I feel similarly about the lack of an objective reason to believe he's being literal and referring to the tangible concept of hope.

I don't agree with you, I believe we do have decisive enough evidence to assume a "possibly" rating at the very least

That's ultimately what it comes down to, a difference in opinion, so it'll come down to a vote.

 

[Deceived3596]

We don't need objective reasoning to assume he's being literal because that's the set-standard, we should believe people are being truthful rather than deceitful without proper reason as to why we should assume the latter. Especially when they're explaining core concepts about themselves.

Basically, we aren't going to convince each other, so there's no point in debating the issue. So, I'm going to stop debating on this issue and focus on explaining my opinion on the Conceptual Manipulation in its entirety. Evaluating mods can review that explanation and agree/disagree with it.

 

[Deagonx]

We don't need objective reasoning to assume he's being literal because that's the set-standard,

I don't agree that we should assume a literal interpretation without evidence by default, especially when we are talking about things like "hope" that are very routinely couched in metaphor.

we should believe people are being truthful rather than deceitful without proper reason as to why we should assume the latter. Especially when they're explaining core concepts about themselves.

This is not an accurate representation of the dichotomy at play here. I am not claiming Gerard or Toshiro are lying, and metaphors are not deceit. The concept of honesty isn't in play here.

 

[Deceived3596]

I'm not going to engage because there's literally zero point. I'm going to say you're wrong, you're going to say I'm wrong.

I'm good.

 

[Deagonx]

That's fine, I was mostly interested in clarifying that the argument doesn't pertain to whether the characters are being honest or lying. Just whether they're being literal.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

That's fine, I was mostly interested in clarifying that the argument doesn't pertain to whether the characters are being honest or lying. Just whether they're being literal.

Metaphors are inherently non-truths. “I’m as strong as an ox” is a lie, it’s an exaggeration used to convey the point I’m strong. Nevertheless, it is a lie.

Regardless, differ to @Maitreya point on if it’s consistent for these characters to be intrinsically and consistently speaking metaphorically. “They could be speaking metaphorically this entire time” is nothing more than a possibility, and one not inherently superior to Deceived’s interpretation.

 

[Deagonx]

Metaphors are inherently non-truths. “I’m as strong as an ox” is a lie, it’s an exaggeration used to convey the point I’m strong. Nevertheless, it is a lie.

Well, that's certainly an opinion, but I wouldn't consider someone dishonest or deceitful for speaking in metaphor. I don't think most people would, that's a very strange way to view the concept of deceit IMO.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Well, that's certainly an opinion, but I wouldn't consider someone dishonest or deceitful for speaking in metaphor. I don't think most people would, that's a very strange way to view the concept of deceit IMO.

You can use metaphors without being deceitful, they’re still non truths inherently is my point.

 

[Deagonx]

You can use metaphors without being deceitful, they’re still non truths inherently is my point.

Sure, but that's not what I was objecting to in Deceived's post, so I don't see the relevance.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Sure, but that's not what I was objecting to in Deceived's post, so I don't see the relevance.

Deceived’s point was less of them being deceitful, and more of it’s more logically consistent for the characters to be describing their abilities literally and accurately. As we have major precedence of characters describing their abilities as such in Bleach.

 

[Deagonx]

He did literally say deceitful, which is why I clarified. The question here is whether he's speaking literally or using a metaphor, not whether he's "lying" or attempting to deceive someone.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

He did literally say deceitful, which is why I clarified. The question here is whether he's speaking literally or using a metaphor, not whether he's "lying" or attempting to deceive someone.

Poor choice of wording on his part doesn’t change what I said in my prior post.

 

[Deagonx]

I agree, I was just clarifying my intent.

 

[Deceived3596]

None of this matters. Regardless if he was actively being deceitful or not holds no bearing on if he was being literal or metaphorical. This holds no bearing the conversation and only furthers the extension of this thread's post count.

 

[Deagonx]

Regardless if he was actively being deceitful or not holds no bearing on if he was being literal or metaphorical

I agree.

I'll also point out that Gerard claims that when his sword is damaged there will be "despair." This is provided as an explanation for why Kenpachi randomly incurred damage. This contributes to it being a metaphor, IMO, as there's no indication that Kenpachi is literally experiencing despair, this was just how Gerard chose to phrase the damage-reflection ability of Hoffnung.

Further, when Toshiro tells Gerard that 'your "hope" has stopped functioning,' hope is in quotation marks. The fan-lation had the quotes, but the official didn't, so I looked at the Japanese and there are indeed quotations around "hope."

So, those two pieces of information IMO contribute to it being metaphorical. Earlier in the fight Toshiro also gripes that Kenpachi and Gerard are a "match made in hell" after they talk back at forth, when Gerard first explains his ability. I don't get the impression that it meant to be taken as a literal explanation of his power, as Gerards persona is rather over the top so metaphor seems to fit more naturally.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I agree.

I'll also point out that Gerard claims that when his sword is damaged there will be "despair." This is provided as an explanation for why Kenpachi randomly incurred damage. This contributes to it being a metaphor, IMO, as there's no indication that Kenpachi is literally experiencing despair, this was just how Gerard chose to phrase the damage-reflection ability of Hoffnung.

Further, when Toshiro tells Gerard that "your hope has stopped functioning" hope is in quotation marks. The fan-lation had the quotes, but the official didn't, so I look at the Japanese and there are indeed quotations around "hope."

So, those two pieces of information IMO contribute to it being metaphorical. Earlier in the fight Toshiro also gripes that Kenpachi and Gerard are a "match made in hell" after they talk back at forth, when Gerard first explains his ability. I don't get the impression that it meant to be taken as a literal explanation of his power, as Gerards persona is rather over the top so metaphor seems to fit more naturally.

You know that those quotations marks aren’t the same as like hypothetical quotes used in English. They’re used to emphasize a word, more akin to holding in English. It’s done with big name techniques and abilities all the time in Bleach and other Japanese works. Don’t try to apply English grammar to Japanese writing especially when you’re not knowledgeable on the Japanese language dude. It’s just dishonesty born from unintentional ignorance.

 

[Deagonx]

You know that those quotations marks aren’t the same as like hypothetical quotes used in English. They’re used to emphasize a word, more akin to holding in English. It’s done with big name techniques and abilities all the time in Bleach and other Japanese works. Don’t try to apply English grammar to Japanese writing especially when you’re not knowledgeable on the Japanese language dude. It’s just dishonesty born from unintentional ignorance.

I am not sure what you thought I meant by that, all I pointed out was that quotations were used and that I believe it contributes to it being metaphorical, which is something that I stand by. I wasn't claiming it was used in the English way, I'd appreciate you not accusing me of dishonesty, Arcker was just warned for that in this same thread.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I am not sure what you thought I meant by that, all I pointed out was that quotations were used and that I believe it contributes to it being metaphorical, which is something that I stand by. I wasn't claiming it was used in the English way, I'd appreciate you not accusing me of dishonesty, Arcker was just warned for that in this same thread.

Im telling you that the quotes don’t mean that buddy I read and write Japanese, I studied it in college. The quotes are the same as bolding shit in English. When does bolded things in English usually indicate metaphors. You’re making a claim using the Japanese grammar, but you’re using the scan incorrectly because the grammar does not mean that at all in Japanese.

Utilizing information in an incorrect way, because you clearly do not know Japanese grammar, is the definition of dishonesty, even if accidental.

 

[Maitreya12]

I feel similarly about the lack of an objective reason to believe he's being literal and referring to the tangible concept of hope.

The reason it can surmised he’s being literal is because he’s in the middle of an explanation of his own ability and power is when the statement comes out. Similarly, Hitsugaya mentions his hope power being nulled when he’s describing his own ability of freezing the functionality of things. An explanation he’s being purely literal in as well.

Unless these characters both have a history of speaking in these unsubstantiated, metaphorical manners when describing their respective powers/abilities, the standard logical conclusion would be to take their word for what it is, especially if those words by those characters are considered trustworthy and valid in all other instances of them describing their powers.

 

[Deagonx]

Arcker, you received a warning about two hours ago for uncivil behavior and you don't appear to have taken that seriously. I am threadbanning you from this subject now.

 

[Deagonx]

Utilizing information in an incorrect way, because you clearly do not know Japanese grammar, is the definition of dishonesty, even if accidental.

Dishonesty isn't accidental, the word includes intent to deceive. I'll say once again, stop accusing people of dishonesty during discussions.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I currently share Arc’s sentiments regarding the OP’s proposals

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Ain’t no way bro deleted my post thoroughly explaining that I wasn’t calling him intentionally deceitful or dishonest. Like… I never called anyone intentionally dishonest stop pretending I did. Im literally explaining myself to make it clear that my intentions were not to call you intentionally dishonest, why did that need to be deleted? Im making my intentions clear because you’re clearly upset that you think I called you dishonest, and I’m literally telling you that’s not the case.

 

[Godernet]

The semantics of the definition of dishonesty aside(people can absolutely unintentionally lie if they are just misinformed.)

Arc's arguments make way more sense here.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

@Deceived3596

After reading the thread, he is deleting the comments as they have derailed now.

 

[Deagonx]

I deleted the comments to prevent further derailing. I issued that correction with regard to our rules on civility, it's uncivil to accuse people of dishonesty. I'll be clear here: This is not an invitation to debate, these words have clear and well known meanings. If someone says something that is incorrect but sincerely believes it to be true, it is not "dishonest" nor is it a "lie" as those words -- by their very definitions -- include an intention to deceive. The more appropriate claim would be that what they're saying is "inaccurate" or perhaps "misinformed."

This is not a subject for each individual users interpretation. Believing, inaccurately, that the word "dishonest" can be used in a scenario where someone is simply mistaken does not constitute a good reason to call other users dishonest when you think they're wrong.

Nothing needed to be said on the matter after I asked Arc to stop, it certainly didn't need to become an argument. I have posted on Arc's wall about the matter if he wishes to continue discussing it, but it does not need to be discussed here.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Dishonesty isn't accidental, the word includes intent to deceive. I'll say once again, stop accusing people of dishonesty during discussions.

I’d appreciate it if this comment was edited or removed, as it is slandering me and misinterpreting my intentions. I never accused Deagonx of being intentionally dishonest. And this comment here does nothing but spread misinformation about my intentions.

 

[Crabwhale]

While I definitely think some of the comments here are good with being deleted (I personally wouldn't but they're somewhat derailing with no real addition), I do think you @Deagonx are taking it to a bit of an extreme.

Arc's statements in particular didn't need to be deleted, as they were not inflammatory and he wasn't even directly attacking your character.

 

[Deagonx]

I understand. I didn't mean to overstep, I was eager to get the discussion back on track instead of debating the meaning of an unrelated word. I understand that Arc didn't intend to attack my character, but his notion of what the word "dishonest" means is not compatible with how it is commonly understood or defined, so he should refrain from describing people that way in the future if what he really meant was "misinformed."

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think the exact wording is as important here as the intent. Arc didn't have malicious intent with what he said. He was not attacking you. He specifically went out of his way to point out he was not attacking you.

In the future please take care to not jump to conclusions and just delete-bomb things.

 

[Deagonx]

There may be a misunderstanding. I understood Arc's intentions, my deletions were solely because the back-and-forth discussion about the meaning of the word dishonest weren't relevant to the thread, not because I thought Arc was intentionally attacking my character. I didn't delete his first two comments calling me that for this reason, only the later ones that revolved around the words meaning.

I do agree that intent is more important than wording, but now that he knows that dishonest implies deceit he should try to avoid it in the future as it's going to be inflammatory.